Did the universe exist for ever or does it have a beginning?

[Eduk]

Greta. I agree that there is no known non ridiculous model of how things came to be. But this tells us nothing about QM and you seem to have simply deferred the problem to how 'quantum froth' came to be, which is surely the same question?

[BigBango]

Ok, I can work with the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle example.

Re the thread generally:

Based on the reality we experience, both the notion that the universe had no beginning or that it did have a beginning are irrational and only saved by a lack of anthropomorphism from being as ludicrously miraculous as a mythical creator. Since it is impossible to imagine a "realistic" non-ridiculous model of how things came to be then that points to quantum phenomena not operating by our rules of reason and logic.

The formation of atoms seems one of the more crazy events in the universe's history. Why would there be three - always three - little chunks of insanely dense "big bang stuff" stuck together that accumulated particular types of perturbations in the fabric of emergent spacetime? Why did those configurations occur once the universe was cool enough to allow it? Without that event you just have a variant of quantum foam.

So let's say we have a quantum froth that periodically throws up universes. Is the froth eternal or did it too have a beginning and is it based on something more fundamental again?

Please, Greta, do not just fall into the nonsense of QM creation. In a collapsing world there are simply physical events that result from what is. The predominate events that we can observe after the fact are the collapse of a world of galaxies whose physical essentials are their black hole galactic centers. These galactic centers contain singularities that determine the physical outcomes of their collapse. After a period of plasmatic implosion these singularities accumulated a new accumulation of mass in the form of quarks that issued a new strong force. Voila, we have a new universe that is constructed of the remnants of the old collapsed universe.

[Steve3007]

The formation of atoms seems one of the more crazy events in the universe's history. Why would there be three - always three - little chunks of insanely dense "big bang stuff" stuck together that accumulated particular types of perturbations in the fabric of emergent spacetime? Why did those configurations occur once the universe was cool enough to allow it? Without that event you just have a variant of quantum foam.

When you talk about three little chunks, if you're referring to protons, neutrons and electrons, then it could be pointed out that these aren't the only little chunks and that protons and neutrons are made from littler chunks (little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite 'em). But that doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of your question. The underlying question, in my view, is simply not in the realm of physics to answer. Physics simply allows us to describe and predict observations.

So let's say we have a quantum froth that periodically throws up universes. Is the froth eternal or did it too have a beginning and is it based on something more fundamental again?

The comment that Eduk made about this is significant:

Greta. I agree that there is no known non ridiculous model of how things came to be. But this tells us nothing about QM and you seem to have simply deferred the problem to how 'quantum froth' came to be, which is surely the same question?

All physics will ever do is give us ever deeper and deeper mechanisms - models - with ever better descriptive and predictive power. It will always be possible to then say: "OK, but, who ordered that?".

[Eduk]

All physics will ever do is give us ever deeper and deeper mechanisms - models - with ever better descriptive and predictive power. It will always be possible to then say: "OK, but, who ordered that?".

Never say never Steve

[Steve3007]

Yes, generally speaking I agree with you that we should never say never because we don't know what might happen in the future. But I think this is built into the definition of what physics does.

[Eduk]

But I think this is built into the definition of what physics does.

Well once we finish physics then we'll know for sure.
On a serious note I partially agree with you and partially don't and as normal it comes down to how you define physics I was listening to Sean Carroll who tries (amongst others) to take the black box that is QM and rationalise it and explain it rather than simply shut up and calculate. Personally I see strengths and weaknesses in both approaches and it seems, to me, that you could take either approach and do it 'correctly' and either approach and do it 'incorrectly'. It is interesting that he sees some of his friends and colleagues who have left physics and taken up philosophy positions (in universities) to be actually doing physics where they are allowed to do the physics that they want to do.

[Steve3007]

...It is interesting that he sees some of his friends and colleagues who have left physics and taken up philosophy positions (in universities) to be actually doing physics where they are allowed to do the physics that they want to do.

Yes, it is. There was a topic here ages ago which features a video of a lecture by a guy who says he used to study theoretical physics but found it too practical, so switched to the philosophy of physics:

viewtopic.php?p=110699#p110699

That was quite interesting. I recommend watching that video if you didn't watch it back then. I also started this topic on the same subject myself:

viewtopic.php?p=232485#p232485

[Sy Borg]

The formation of atoms seems one of the more crazy events in the universe's history. Why would there be three - always three - little chunks of insanely dense "big bang stuff" stuck together that accumulated particular types of perturbations in the fabric of emergent spacetime? Why did those configurations occur once the universe was cool enough to allow it? Without that event you just have a variant of quantum foam.

When you talk about three little chunks, if you're referring to protons, neutrons and electrons

That's the problem with poetic language. I should have made clear that I meant quarks. Sorry, that was a bit of a time waster for you.

I find the concept of quarks fascinating. These little guys seem to be boss of atoms in much the same way as the Sun is the boss of the solar system, containing almost all of its mass. Aside from black hole singularities, they are the closest stuff in the universe to the stuff of the early big bang - tiny portions of primordial material safely bundled up in a stable form, preventing them from dissipating. And there are always three quarks. If you apply the gargantuan forces needed to pull them apart they rearrange back to threes faster than you can say, well, anything :)

[Sy Borg]

Greta. I agree that there is no known non ridiculous model of how things came to be. But this tells us nothing about QM and you seem to have simply deferred the problem to how 'quantum froth' came to be, which is surely the same question?

All physics will ever do is give us ever deeper and deeper mechanisms - models - with ever better descriptive and predictive power. It will always be possible to then say: "OK, but, who ordered that?".

I enjoy visualisations. When I try to visualise the pre-BB 'quantum foam' (I wrote 'froth' earlier, oops) what I perceive is something like the universe. On a grand enough time scale, that's what the universe looks like - stars, planets and other objects winking in and out of existence.

PS. This is just an perspective I'd found interesting; I'm not serious proposing that it's 'turtles all the way down' :)

[Sy Borg]

In a collapsing world there are simply physical events that result from what is. The predominate events that we can observe after the fact are the collapse of a world of galaxies whose physical essentials are their black hole galactic centers. These galactic centers contain singularities that determine the physical outcomes of their collapse. After a period of plasmatic implosion these singularities accumulated a new accumulation of mass in the form of quarks that issued a new strong force. Voila, we have a new universe that is constructed of the remnants of the old collapsed universe.

Are you going for a total big crunch at one point, or are you positing many individual galactic crunches? Perhaps many examples of 'Great Attractors'?

However, the big crunch conception needs to explain why most galaxies are flying away from each other at ever greater acceleration.

[BigBango]

In a collapsing world there are simply physical events that result from what is. The predominate events that we can observe after the fact are the collapse of a world of galaxies whose physical essentials are their black hole galactic centers. These galactic centers contain singularities that determine the physical outcomes of their collapse. After a period of plasmatic implosion these singularities accumulated a new accumulation of mass in the form of quarks that issued a new strong force. Voila, we have a new universe that is constructed of the remnants of the old collapsed universe.

Are you going for a total big crunch at one point, or are you positing many individual galactic crunches? Perhaps many examples of 'Great Attractors'?

However, the big crunch conception needs to explain why most galaxies are flying away from each other at ever greater acceleration.

Seems to me most implosions I am familiar with result in an explosion. The thing to be attentive to here is that this implosion is not just the implosion of simple matter. It is the implosion of the mass of accumulated matter contained in the black hole galactic centers of a pre-universe. This implosion or, as you suggest, the implosion of many great attractors results in the release of all varying amounts of mass previously owned by "identical" singularities. The resulting evolution of the "mass turned to plasma" results in a new formation of the universe whose nature is now governed by the actual placement of the exploding singularities and their attractive force that we identify as the source of the strong force that holds the mass of atomic nucleuses together. It is a birth of new galaxies whose matter is now the collapsed galactic centers of the pre-universe.

Whether or not we will stop expanding at ever increasing speeds is interesting but doesn't seem to change an analysis of the facts of the Big Crunch/Big Bang controversy. My only interest in that regard is the role of "technology" that seems to be completely out of the conversation, as if we have to just assume we will be the victims of cosmological forces and at the same time have no control over cosmological events.

[Sy Borg]

My only interest in that regard is the role of "technology" that seems to be completely out of the conversation, as if we have to just assume we will be the victims of cosmological forces and at the same time have no control over cosmological events.

An excellent point. There is what could be thought of as an ultra-conservative baseline assumption in future cosmic models that we remain as is - tiny, impotent beings in a vast cosmos. That assumption is "conservative" in that no extra qualities of humanity are being invented or speculated. However, not much is more unrealistic than the idea that humanity will remain more or less as is over billions of years.

Perhaps our kind of star is not quite long lived enough to create optimal conditions for advanced technological species? Maybe cooler and longer lived orange dwarfs, especially large ones rich in resource, would give intelligent species extra time to develop before reaching our current stress points of overpopulation and mass extinctions.

A technological species several billion years old would surely be leaving their footprint around their local areas of their home galaxy at least. It would be fascinating to see from a safe distance how the universe would turn out in another 13.8 billions years from now.

[Steve3007]

I find the concept of quarks fascinating. These little guys seem to be boss of atoms in much the same way as the Sun is the boss of the solar system, containing almost all of its mass. Aside from black hole singularities, they are the closest stuff in the universe to the stuff of the early big bang - tiny portions of primordial material safely bundled up in a stable form, preventing them from dissipating. And there are always three quarks. If you apply the gargantuan forces needed to pull them apart they rearrange back to threes faster than you can say, well, anything

Yes, I think perhaps the apparent strangeness of this behaviour comes from the fact that we all need visualizations. So we have to visualize such things as quarks by analogy with things we can literally visualize - i.e. see. Hence our notions of elementary particles as miniature stars, planets or billiard balls. As soon as we do that, the parts where the analogy doesn't hold up make the little critters seem strange. The only alternative is to simply use mathematics to describe everything. That way, as long as the mathematics is sound, nothing looks strange. But then we lose the visualization and everything seems dry, cold and difficult to get an intuitive grasp of.

I enjoy visualisations.

Yes, I think we all do. I don't think I've ever met anyone who can be genuinely satisfied just to look at a set of mathematical equations and be happy that they're looking at a vision of how the universe works.

When I try to visualise the pre-BB 'quantum foam' (I wrote 'froth' earlier, oops) what I perceive is something like the universe. On a grand enough time scale, that's what the universe looks like - stars, planets and other objects winking in and out of existence.

Yes, it's interesting to play with what it would be like to perceive the world on very different scales of time and/or space. It seems that if you scale either down or up from our human perspective you get a sense of constant change. Perhaps it's only on a roughly human scale that the impression of stability is created. And perhaps that's not surprising because some stability was needed in order for us to evolve in the first place. So there's an anthropic principle at work.

PS. This is just an perspective I'd found interesting; I'm not serious proposing that it's 'turtles all the way down'

Well, if it turned out that every apparently elementary particle was actually composed of still more elementary particles, and so on ad infinitum, then, in a sense, maybe it would be "turtles all the way down"!

[Sy Borg]

I find the concept of quarks fascinating. These little guys seem to be boss of atoms in much the same way as the Sun is the boss of the solar system, containing almost all of its mass. Aside from black hole singularities, they are the closest stuff in the universe to the stuff of the early big bang - tiny portions of primordial material safely bundled up in a stable form, preventing them from dissipating. And there are always three quarks. If you apply the gargantuan forces needed to pull them apart they rearrange back to threes faster than you can say, well, anything :)

Yes, I think perhaps the apparent strangeness of this behaviour comes from the fact that we all need visualizations. So we have to visualize such things as quarks by analogy with things we can literally visualize - i.e. see. Hence our notions of elementary particles as miniature stars, planets or billiard balls. As soon as we do that, the parts where the analogy doesn't hold up make the little critters seem strange. The only alternative is to simply use mathematics to describe everything. That way, as long as the mathematics is sound, nothing looks strange. But then we lose the visualization and everything seems dry, cold and difficult to get an intuitive grasp of.

The maths is of course beyond me. All I do is listen to what the experts say and, you note, I'm no doubt falling prey to taking their teaching models more literally than is the fact.

I am quite taken with the idea of insanely dense substances, such as that of the early Planck Era universe from which all this emerged. Perhaps I like how they challenge our sense of solidity? One cubic centimetre of quark gluon plasma would apparently weigh 40 billion tons. The effects that such objects have on their immediate environments are profound, stretching the fabric of reality.

When I try to visualise the pre-BB 'quantum foam' (I wrote 'froth' earlier, oops) what I perceive is something like the universe. On a grand enough time scale, that's what the universe looks like - stars, planets and other objects winking in and out of existence.

Yes, it's interesting to play with what it would be like to perceive the world on very different scales of time and/or space. It seems that if you scale either down or up from our human perspective you get a sense of constant change. Perhaps it's only on a roughly human scale that the impression of stability is created. And perhaps that's not surprising because some stability was needed in order for us to evolve in the first place. So there's an anthropic principle at work.

Yes, constant change. Imagine the world's surface sped up to the point where a human life was akin to a momentary perturbation. Cities would be a sea of blinking "pixels" and, through the blinking would emerge longer lived structures.

PS. This is just an perspective I'd found interesting; I'm not serious proposing that it's 'turtles all the way down' :)

Well, if it turned out that every apparently elementary particle was actually composed of still more elementary particles, and so on ad infinitum, then, in a sense, maybe it would be "turtles all the way down"!

Poor old superstring theory. Shame the LHC got in the way. Still, maybe there are Planck scale entities, or maybe intermediate between Planck and quantum?

What of the very bottom layer, whatever it would be? If it's, say, Planck scale string variant, then it would seemingly endlessly and exponentially accumulate information because there's nowhere for information to be lost to.

[Consul]

Well, if it turned out that every apparently elementary particle was actually composed of still more elementary particles, and so on ad infinitum, then, in a sense, maybe it would be "turtles all the way down"!

Matter might be atomless gunk.

"Borrowing a term from David Lewis (…), let us say that an object is made of ‘atomless gunk’ if it has no (mereological) atoms as parts. If something is made of atomless gunk then it divides forever into smaller and smaller parts—it is infinitely divisible. However, a line segment is infinitely divisible, and yet has atomic parts: the points. A hunk of gunk does not even have atomic parts ‘at infinity’; all parts of such an object have proper parts."

(Sider, Theodore. "Van Inwagen and the Possibility of Gunk." Analysis 53 (1993): 285-289. p. 286)